canon 17-85mm equivalant to 28-135mm????

[tobra]

with the canon 40d crop factor is the 17-85mm lens equivalent to the 28-135? i already have a 28-135 and i'm wanting to get a couple more lenses. i want a good wide angle, but i don't want to duplicate what i already have.

also would like to get a nice zoom, have been looking at the 70-200mm but wondered if i could get by with 75-300 or anything else someone might suggest....

any other suggestions?

thanks!

http://www.pbase.com/tobra

[dougj]

The Field of View (crop factor) will affect all lenses by the same factor when used on the same camera. The 17-85 is 17-85 on a full frame (35mm film) camera, but has a FOV of 27-136mm on the 40D due to the sensor size ratio of 1.6. The 28-135 has a FOV of 45-216mm on the 40D, so these lenses do not overlap on the wide angle end.

I use a 17-40 on my 30D (same FOV as the 40D), and it’s wide enough for me, some like it even wider and use zooms that begin at 10-12mm.

Canon has several 70-200 lenses, the new 70-200 f/4 IS is an ‘L’ class lens, one of the best zooms Canon makes. I have the f/2.8 version of this lens and no experience with f/4 IS, but the reports & reviews have been excellent. All of the 'L' lenses perform very well and are quite rugged, but they are expensive.

Another consideration is the Canon 70-300 IS USM, a relatively new lens that replaced earlier versions. This one would provide a FOV of 112-480mm on the 40D. I have a different 70-300, purchased before this one was introduced, but the reviews and reports for the new one have been very good, and it's not very expensive. There are probably a number of non-Canon lenses in this focal range that would meet your needs as well, I know little about the others.

[tobra]

thanks....i'm a newbie and i want to get a a few lenses, but i'm not really sure what i want. i am certain that i want a wide angle, and i really need a telephoto ...and i would like a macro lens. but i'm going to be doing quite a bit of portrait shooting so i need a lens that will suit that well. i have done a lot of reading about my options, but i wanted to see if i could get any opinions here....

i have heard 17-85 is the wide angle i should get
70-200mm f2.8 (or 4) is the telephoto
60mm macro -
also heard that a 100mm and a 50mm would both suit portait well.

and, i've heard a lot of people say to get the 24-105mm. my problem is that i'm just beginning to understand the different lengths and their capabilities. any input would be helpful!

[dougj]

Tobra, how much is your budget and what are your shooting style priorities (portraiture, landscape, macro, sports, etc.) and the timing?

The 28-135 you have is a versatile mid-focal range walk around lens, and good to start with to learn and explore. The 28mm starting point is not wide enough for landscapes, etc. The 135mm long end is OK, but a lot of folks want 200-300mm on the long end. Are you satisfied with what you're producing in terms of image quality with the 28-135?

17-85 – OK as a wide angle, and you need a decent WA.

70-200 – great lenses. The f/2.8 is expensive, the new f/4 IS is half the price, a lot lighter and smaller, and an excellent performer. The 70-300 IS USM is also a very good, affordable lens.

24-105 - a very good walk around lens, but it's best on a full frame camera like the 5D or 1D that doesn't have a FOV factor. It’s not wide enough on a crop body camera, the extra 4mm on the wide end doesn’t do too much. If you are satisfied with the 28-135 as a walk around lens, there is no reason to replace it with the 24-105 at this point. Also, If you have a wide angle and a tele zoom you have the focal length range covered.

Dang just posted some information in another thread on macro photography. He has a great gallery of photos, equipment, tips, etc. that you should look at.

Strictly for portraiture, you’ll have 3 lenses you can use - the 17-85, 70-200 and the 28-135. I think you should hold off buying a dedicated lens until you get some practice with these and see if one or more of them meet your needs. The 70-200 does a very nice job with portraits.
Other things you'll need include a flash (something like a 550EX), decent tripod, lens cleaning kit, spare battery & CF card..... if you don’t have this already.

There are some decent non-Canon lenses as well. Maybe some other folks can jump in with their thoughts. Anyone?

[prinothcat]

There are some decent non-Canon lenses as well. Maybe some other folks can jump in with their thoughts. Anyone?

Seems that the Tokina 12-24 gets good reviews for wide angle. I would agree with everything else that's been said. Given that Canon makes 2 70-200's take a good look at the f4.0 version. I wish Nikon had this option.

[tobra]

would you mind taking a look at my galleries and letting me know if you think i'm on the right track.....many of the shots were taken with different cameras, but i created a gallery for just the canon 40d shots so that you and others could see just what i've done with just the 28-135mm.

http://www.pbase.com/tobra/canon_40d_shots

i will probably end up with the 70-200 for sure, that lens seems to be a constant and i will need it a lot for drag racing photos and football photos..... do you think i can get by with the f4 for those 2 situations or should i go ahead and bite the bullet and get the f2.8? some photos will be taken at dusk but mainly daytime. i want that lens especially for its versatility. would the 70-300 do as well with portraits? i really think i'm going to have to just get the 70-200.

i really need advice on what WA to get. we are going to be traveling quite a bit this summer and i would like to make sure i can get some good shots. if you look through my entire portfolio you will see that there were several shots taken with p&s that would have been incredibly better with a decent camera.

sounds like i could get the 70-200 for telephoto and portraits and then i would need a WA and i will have to research the macro a little more.

i have a tripod, and a 2gb cf card but if i'm going to be shooting in RAW i will probably need a larger card. i'm still trying to figure out the advantages of raw vs the highest quality jpeg. the photo community seems very divided on this.....i also need to get a flash.

i have entertained the idea of getting non-canon lenses, heard a lot of positive about sigma also.....

i really appreciate the responses. it's so difficult to figure certain things out just by reading, hopefully others will benefit from my questions as well.....and i will keep asking until you stop me!!!

thanks again!

[dougj]

You have some nice photos in your gallery, and your 28-135 looks like a good copy. Having said that, the 70-200 f/4 L IS is a significant step up from this lens, and is probably the best zoom Canon has ever made in terms of image quality.

What you lose with the 70-200 f/4 IS compared to a f/2.8 IS:
DOF – the f/4 will not be as shallow wide open, this can be either good or bad depending on the shot, but generally it is not a problem.

The 40D autofocus switches into a higher accuracy mode when an f/2.8 or faster lens is mounted, 1/3 DOF for a f/2.8 vs. 1 DOF for smaller apertures. Not a problem as the 40D AF accuracy seems to be quite good to begin with.

Shutter speed or ISO – You lose 1 stop, for most shots this should not be an issue as the 40D can shoot quite well at higher ISOs, and for daylight, flash & other moderate to well lighted work f/4 is fast enough, and this lens can be used wide open. Where the f/2.8 shines is low light photography, where the ISO is already pushed to its limit and you still need a faster SS. However the price to gain the extra stop is very high. Photos at dusk are a challenge, especially if it’s sports related with subjects in motion. The 1 stop gain of the f/2.8 will certainly help, but you may need an even faster lens, and this would be a fast prime.

On the other hand, the f/4 version is very sharp wide open, while the f/2.8 has a tendency to be a little soft. Most folks don’t consider this to be an issue, unless you spend a lot of time examining individual pixels on a PC monitor. The f/4 has the latest IS, which is good for 3-4 stops in hand hold ability, compared to 2-3 stops with the f/2.8. the f/4 is smaller, lighter, and less costly as mentioned in a previous post.

IMHO, the best lens for you is the 70-200 f/4 IS. It will be very good as a general purpose zoom, good for drag racing, football and for portraits. It is so sharp it will show every wrinkle, pore, nose hair and skin blemish in well defined detail with portraits. Not a problem if you’re shooting cowboys, but if you want to stay on the good side of your female friends, you’ll need to do some post processing to soften the rough spots and maybe correct the bright spots that have too much light.

Prinothcat recommended a good WA lens for you to consider and look at. Something else you can do is check PBase. There is a great feature in that you can search for images by camera or lens (after the camera listings). I suggest you make a short list of the top lenses you are considering and check out some of photos. This should give you some realistic, real world examples. A couple of other resources, these with reviews:

http://www.photozone.de/reviews
http://www.photodo.com/category_2.html

At the end of the day, you will have done your homework, probably have a short list of a few lenses, and are going nuts trying to pick the best one. Welcome to the club. Your significant other will be supportive, smile a little less when you mention ‘lens’ and your dog/cat now thinks ‘wide angle’ are bad words. Pick one and go for it, and it’ll be a good choice. The nice thing about lenses is you can always sell them if want to make a change.

I don’t have experience with the various in-camera shooting styles, and how much processing they do, I do all of this outside of the camera. You can explore and try them to see if they meet your needs. You should consider some photo editing software so you can make image-specific adjustments on your PC. There are many programs that will do this, some for free and some for fee. Adobe is probably the leader, I started with Photo Shop Elements and moved to the full version and it works for me.

You’ll see a number of posts from experienced users on different photo editing programs. They’re all good, each with its particular strengths and weaknesses. Elements is a good starting point, and will probably be enough for most photos.

RAW vs. JPG – I suggest you start with JPG and get the 40D experience with composition, exposure, ISO, aperture, etc. After you’re comfortable you can try RAW, IMO its main strengths are recovery of *some* blown highlights (about 1 stop of headroom), and correcting white balance if needed. There are a few other areas it’s helpful with, but for me those are the key ones. If you’re bored on a rainy day you could start to experiment with RAW. You’re using Canon DPP already, and it includes a very good RAW converter.

As a minimum, you need a backup CF. Quality, name branded CFs are cheap today. I suggest you buy from a reputable source and avoid ebay, etc. There are a lot of counterfeit CFs on the market.

Apologies for the not-so short story, I hope this is helpful and it is only my opinion. I hope others will add to the thread.

[prinothcat]

You have some nice images there. To add to your wide angle options. This morning I ran across a review of a soon to be released Tokina 11-16. It is apparently out in Japan and due on our shores this summer. Review is on Ken Rockwells site. Be aware that he generates mixed emotions around these parts. He does offer up his opinions with graphic examples so you can decide for yourself whether or not he's full of *&$@.
The options in this range in Canon (17-40mm f/4 L, 16-35mm f/2.8 L II, Canon 10-22mm) are quite good apparently and occupy the same price point as the where 11-16 is supposed to be released.
I noticed that no one has mentioned the DPreveiws site yet as a good source for opinions on equipment. Perhaps this was intentional.
gotta go no it's way past my bedtime.

[tobra]

i have been reading some of ken rockwell's reviews on other lenses also. i am really conflicted about the 70-200mm f4 usm with or without IS, then there's the 70-300mm with IS usm, but in order to get the DO i will be spending the same as the 70-200f4 without IS. geeesh. i've read good and bad about the 70-300mm, and nothing but good about the 70-200 but it's so difficult to decide what to get. on the 70-300 the DO seems like it's a lot more updated but, well, let me put it this way...and i'm using buydig prices only just as a base...

70-300mm usm IS f4-5.6 $549
70-300mm usm IS f4.5-5.6 DO $1143

70-200mmL usm f4 $579
70-200mmL usm f4 IS $1049

70-200mmL usm f2.8 $1139
70-200mmL usm f2.8 $1689

it's basically a tough call between farther telephoto reach and whether IS is that important? 2-3 stops faster with IS seems like a lot more, but is it worth the $$$? and if i go with the 300 should i get DO or not? again...huge jump in price when i could spend the same on a DO 300 and get a 70-200mm f4 w/IS OR a 70-200f2.8 without IS.....i'm glad i understand the differences because otherwise i'd be completely lost. my main concern is finding out which is going to be the best value for now...i considered getting the 70-300 usm is and learning to master that and then going all in with the L series. anyway, i'm rambling, but i really appreciate all the input from everyone. the situation becomes even more difficult when i start to consider non-canon lenses. i'm been looking at those also. as soon as i make this decision i will be deciding on the WA using some of the info prinothcat has provided.

i hope others are gaining from all this because you have both been very helpful and i would hope that it's not just benefiting me!

[prinothcat]

You might do well to look at B&H and Adorama out of NYC. Particularly look at their used section. I suspect the 70-300 is well represented there. They are both reputable, and in most peoples eyes, safe. If you're not sure what direction you're headed, used might be a good option. My next question would be who is Buydig? You might check out the Where's The Best Place To Buy Online? thread elsewhere on these boards, before you make a decision regarding online purchase.

[dougj]

I think you can eliminate a few lenses from your list, but this is from my perspective.

70-300 DO – Introduced before the current 70-300 IS USM, Canon did not have a good 70-300 and was investing in diffractive optics technology back then. DO is novel, it makes lenses smaller and lighter, but it is expensive. The lens is built very well, almost like an ‘L’, but the 70-300 IS USM produces comparable image quality at a much lower cost.

70-200 f/2.8 and f/4 (the non-IS versions) – I prefer IS with longer focal lengths simply because it reduces the need for a tripod. Some will correctly state a tripod, and sometimes a monopod, have been used quite successfully for decades. This is very true, but I like the freedom IS provides for most shots.

70-200 f/2.8L IS – A great lens, but the cost to go from f/4 to f/2.8 is high, and it is a heavy lens. I bought the f/2.8 IS version because I wanted a very good lens with IS, and IS wasn’t available on the f/4 lens back then. The size and weight of the f/2.8 makes it difficult (for me) to travel with, this is why I bought the 70-300 DO.

If I had to do it again today, I would probably buy the 70-200 f/4 L IS, as optically it has no equal for a zoom lens and it can be shot wide open at f/4 with no loss of image quality. And for birds and some other photography I want the best image quality I can get. I occasionally shoot at f/2.8 or f/3.2, but the good high ISO performance of the new cameras makes it easy to increase the ISO to maintain a high enough shutter speed in most cases. I would probably also buy the 70-300 IS USM, mostly for traveling and for some general walk around shooting where the extra 100mm is an advantage.

Your thought of starting with the 70-300 IS USM is very reasonable IMO. This will get you started with a good zoom that covers a good tele focal length range. When you see how your shooting style evolves, you can decide if you need to compliment it with something else.

[tobra]

thank you for your help. i really think the 70-300 is a good idea until i master it, then i will move up to the 70-200mm which is what i know i eventually get anyway. i have found some good deals on the 70-300 is usm lens. i'm guessing it will perform well with portraits also.....

i have used photoshop 7.0 quite a bit, i am going to buy cs2 because i don't think there's any point in spending 100 on elements when i can get cs2 for about 200 and have a lot more capability. as far as working in raw, my main concern is making sure the image quality is enough to make a large wall portrait. i've been pleased so far with my shots in jpeg at the highest quality but i wondered if there would be any advantage to starting in raw rather than compressing the image immediately. i also know there is an option to shoot raw and jpg on some cameras. i believe the 40d has something like this but i haven't even looked for it yet because i've been shooting so much to learn!

buydig is another site i ran across that sells lenses/digital supplies etc. i have read some positive reviews and found a lot of people who've had good experiences with them, however i'll probably buy somewhere else, i was just pulling pricing off there because i had it up when i was posting....but thanks for the heads up.

on to wide angle now that (i think) i've made that decision.....17-85 seems moderately priced by canon, i've been looking at some tokina lenses which cost less but i'm just starting the research on WA so i have a lot of leg work to do! i thank you both for all your help!

[dougj]

CS2 for $200 is a good deal for a good program. It will not convert RAW files from the 40D, but the program you're using, DPP, will be good for that.

Good luck!

[memejr1949]

If you want a macro and portrait lens, the Sigma 150 macro might fit the bill. Great lens and not too expensive. The canon 100 macro like wise, with a 1.6 crop factors the 150 may be too long and the 100 may suit you better. I am not aware of any zooms that are true macro lens 1:1 ratio